Item 26 - PDC - Charles E. Herold (PDC 86-33)kIVIORANDUM
CITY OF POWAY
OF
THE -
T0: Manbers of the City Council
FROM: Carl R. Kruse, Mayor
DATE: August 19, 1986
SUBJECP Pre -Development Conference Charles. E. Herold (PDC 86-33)
****.**:**.**************.****.*************
Attached isa request from. Charles E. Herold for a pre development conference.;
if you. concur, it will be scheduled for the September 4th workshop.
CREIMEW:ml
Attachment
AUG 19 1986 ITEM
26
X
_.
AGENDA REPO'. of Po��
CITY OF PO AY x.
A
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council.
James L. Bowersox, City -Manager {
INITIATED BY': Reba W.. Touw, Director- of Plannin Services d-
Kris A. Hughst Assistant Planner :{
DATE. August 19, 1986
SUBJECT: Predevelopment Conference Analysis {PDC 86-33} for
Charles E. Herold, Applicant
ABSTRACT
REQUEST:. - Consideration of a request for a proposed
Conditional Use Permit to allow the use.of an
existing structure located in the MS zone as,a.
contractor's office and storage yard.
LOCATION: 14.037 Poway Road
GROSS ACREAGE: 13,680 square feet (.3 acre)
SURROUNDING F.
ZONING, AND
LAND USES: Properties to the east and west of the site are }
zoned MS and are developed. with commercial uses..
The lot which is.adJacent to the south is zoned.
RS -7 and developed with a one-story single-
family dwelling. f
HISTORY: The; subject structure is a historic building
which is currently occupied by a real estate:
office and an antique furniture buesiness- The.
applicant proposes to utilize the existing
building as a general contractor's office and to
_ use the unpaved rear yard as a storage area for
lumber and parking area for one truck used, in
the business.. He plans, to use the building for
a period of three to four years*
ACTION
{
t
-
AUG 19 1986 ITEM 26
Agenda Report
August 19r 1986
Page 2
The only site improvement proposed is the
construction of a six foot. high, solid wood fence-
along the. southern property line. The: remainder
of the rear, yard Is, -already- fenced..
The property development. standards, of the MS
zone would require the following site improve-
ments:
1. Construction of an eight foot high.mason.ry,
wall enclosing the outdoor storage area.. A
five foot wide raised landscape planter
would be required adjacent to the wall,
along the southern property line, where the.
site adjoinsresidential zoning..
2. installation of landscaping in the required
20 foot setback area along Poway Road:, and.
Welton Lane..
. F
3ive off. -street parking spaces.
JL'B.: R .L : KAH i 1..aS
Attachments:.
1.. ` Zoning Map
2 . to elan
3 Agreement. of understanding
AUG 19 1986 1.T E M 26
RENO` RDKA
z
2
v'
t
AVEN I DA
C I!I0A,
m s
m s
t �
i.
i
PO AY ROAD
1
SITE
R. s
F
z
cfl"Y
OF: PO-wAY
IT E' PQC_ 8L-33
F
,
-
TLTE O'NANG
fi
CAI
SCALE
ATT�.�'�IMN`T i
AUG 10 1986 ITT
r
Ae
arm To` 'S F 6 -r
';
e� 0WM7
WAY
'. S;e
a�
0_
e
l
3
:ICl.G`s
-Pea'?2 c KTSA
j -D
''- �. f �-•
tic
.
�
2f
Pte:
.
A)VDSCA ITS
Jf
5- E100 A Kt
TITLE h . T
si G
ITTA;CH,, M �N T:
acct: 14 VAR tTr-. �.�
City Council for the City of Poway, hereinafter referred to as "City" and
J,ee zo cais . tt t' . , hereinafter. referred to as "Proponent"
enter into this Agreement of Understanding based upon the following facts:
Proponent awns or has aneauitabie interest in land described by tax
assessor's parcel numbers) 3 z...3 Lfe,,
Proponent desires to develop this property in accordance with the will of the
City and withoutthe expense of a protracted devel.opnent..
City is concerned. that Proponent will create development plans =satisfac-
tory,- to City and: consume tithe and effort of City employees needlessly on
unsatisfactory development plans unless City assists in directing Proponent
Based upon the above-mentioned facts, City will grant. Proponent a hearing
prior to filing any application for deve%gnrnt upon the following understand-
ing:
City will render no decision with regards to any develot proposal
or part thereof
s•
City willreceive no evidence, specific in nature, in
particular deve opeent plan.
City will make no representations that will: obligate the City to render
a decision: infavor of or againstany development proposal or part
thereof Proponent nay subsequently submit.
D. If any development proposal is subsequently submitted, Proponent will -
proceed at its sole and exclusive risk with the understanding that City
has made no representations upon which Proponent nay rely.
Prcnonent:
Signature A
IT6t41 FDC 86,-33
TLS. 5jTE PLAN
ATTACHMENT: 3
/Ma 1 q NAR ITEM : ' 3
Carl R. Kruse, Mayor
August 19, 1986
Pre -De relopnent. Conference Zanderson, Inc (PDC 86-35)
************* * ****:*************'
a request. from. Zanderson, Inc., for a pre-deve10 went. conference. If
it will be scheduled for the Septenber 4th workshop.
" AGENDA REP09i�
o
CITY OF POWAY
F tea. too
c
IN THE
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM. James L. Bowers.ox., City Manager
INITIATED BY* Reba.W. Touw, Director of Planning Services &
John E. Bridges, Assistant Director of Planning Services,.
DATE August 19, 1986
SUBJECT:: Pre -Development. Conference Analysis (PDC 86-35) for '
Z'anderson, Inc, A22licant
ABSTRACT'
Request« Consideration of a request to construct a 72 -unit
condominium project or a 120--unt. apartment project.
Location: Northeast corner of the, intersection of Poway and
Carriage Roads ,
Gross.
Acreage:. 11.9 acres
Surrounding
Land Use: The property to the north: is zoned. for single family
residential uses. A 7 -Eleven convenience store is a
located to.the west,, an ARCO AM --PM minimart to the
south, and Wendt/ srestaurant islocated adjacent to
the eas.t.boundar.y.
Slopea Previous grading has established cut. banks. Theree is
a 25` foot elevational change from Poway Road to the
plateau equal. to 57% .slope. From the: plateau, to the
top of an adjoining hill there is a 10-7 foot ele-
vational difference equal to a 36% slope
General Plan
and Zoning:: The subjectsite is zoned Residential Condominium.
Properties to the north are zoned RS -7 with those on
the east, west, and south zoned.for General
Commercial uses. There is- also a small section of RA
zoned property to the northwest.
ACTION
An 19 1%6 l..TE:M 26
rx-.-y.,-•--•;.�+..-r....'.-+,.. . ._ ,..a-..�«..,. _..-t ,.. -.- _.zt.. .-,..:.,.w .g. vsr.-'..+-a J7jjI
Agenda Report
f August 19, 1986
i` Page 2:
History.:
Tentative Map 4180 was approved ,by the County of. San.
'October
Diego in 1980.and revised in 1982.. As part
of the. adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1983 the;
zoning was changed from RV -3 and RV -10 (Residential
Variable) to RC (Residential Condominium),., The
approved tentative map included a conditional use
permit for a 71 -unit condominium project for the
site. A third time extension for the tentative map
was denied in December 1984. With the denial of the
map, the Conditional Use Permit 82-02 for the project
also expired. Thersite has been: previously graded:
creating an elogated plateau parallel. to Poway Road
and Carriage Road which is suitable for development.
A large hillside extends to the east from this pla-
teau area and was designated as open space under the-
henow
nowexpired tentative map and conditional use permit.
Zoning:
l
The Code provides for a maximum of 7-12 units per net
acne.. The gross acreage of the site is 11.9 acres..
The. net acreage# including slopes, is 10*63; acres,
This acreage would conceptually support up to 1.27
condominium or apartment units at a maximum density
3a,
of 12 units per acre. If the slopes were removed-
°''
from.the net acreage, there are approximately, 4.5
acres of flat developable area. A 50 -foot setback is
required from any single family zone when the pro.-
posed building exceeds 15 feet in height. An eight -
foot -high block wall is. required on the boundary line
between the two zones.. Building heights are limited
-
to -two stories or 35 feet whichever is. less. On-site.
parking is based on: the number. of bedrooms with a ;
minimum one -garage space per bedroom. On-site
improvements such as a swimming pool.childrents play= -'
areas, and park -like quiet areas are also required.
All existing slopes must -be landscaped with trees,;
shrubs, and groundcover.
Genera
Plan:
Due to the high visability of the project site,
future structures should be constructed in a non:-
obstrusive manner and painted in earthtone colors to:
minimize the visual impact.
I
4
i
f of 7`
AUG 191986 ITEM 26
1
Agenda
Report:
August
191 1986
Page 3.
Summary:.. The project site was originally divided into three
lots with Lost 3 consisting of 3,.5 acres, placed in
open space to protect the hillside.. Sierra Pacifics,
the previous owner of the property had intended to
build the approved 71 -unit condominium projec't but
never, moved forward with the project.. The map is no
longer, active and any new development would require
the approval of a tentative map for condominiums, and.
a development review.
JLBad�i Ri JEB 's I s
$
i
Attachments . -
I
Appl i cant ° s Letter
2..
Agreement of Understanding -
}
3.
Surrounding Zoning and General Plan
s
g
t
j
-
Q
�- auG 1 s 1986 ITEM: 26
PRE -DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE REQUEST BY ZANDERSON, INC'..
LOCATION: 11.9Acres, Zoned RC, Northeast corner of' Intersection Poway
a
Road and Carriage Road.
REQUEST: 120'units as allowed by the general plan and zoning.
HISTORY: Subject property was graded in the early 1970`s and a tenta-
tive map. for 71 units was approved in the 1980`s;, since
then the map has expired.. . Approximately a dozen developers
have Looked at the property with no success at arriving
at a feasible development over the last ten (10) years.
The main factors limiting the development potential are
as follows: -
A. GRADING: The site as graded does not have proper compac-
tion and will require to be recompacted. This will -entail
taking out approximately 6 to 10' fee of dirt and recompactng
the site..
An existing: slip -plan exists at the easterly end of the
site and will require extensive regrading toapproximately
4 feet below. Poway Road to stabilize the slip -plan..
In summary, the required grading_ could run between $150,:000
to $200,;000 for this site. Due to the. substandard grading,
thin site presents. a major risk, to any developer.
B. MARKETING SURVEY - CONDOMINIUMS: An extensive 'study,
shows that medium. priced condominiums would not be well
accepted due to the commercial location and the abundant
availability of this 'type of product in: the North County �-
with much more appealing locations.. The family buying: an
$80,000 and higher `condominium prefers a residential setting
versus a downtown commercial location. For condominiums
to succeed, the market. condition would have to dramatically,
change which would be at least two to three years away,
at best.
C. MARKET SURVEY - APARTMENTS: The City of Poway has the
lowest. apartment vacancy of' any City in San Diego County
where the average vacancy is 5-I0% Poway has about 2% with
waiting lists at the newer apartment projects-.. The need
for new rental housing; to support the needs of the average
working person and/or family is greatly needed as exhibited
by the low, vacancy. The majority of the existing rentals
are old and to the best of our knowledge, no major new com-
Pl.exes are planned to meet the low income family needs.
The location of this project will not only help meet the
housing needs, but also add a financial stimulus to the
4 of
AUG_ 191986 ITE M 26 Attat 1
to the commercial sector in both buying volume and residential
needs of low, income employees.
D. SERVICES AND INFILL:: Due to the location, all the ex-
isting services in the downtown area will be: better amortized
since everything:from fire protection, police,bus: service
and utilities are already in place with little or no addi-
tional burden placed on them. The alternative of ',supplying
thismuch moderate cost housing in some outlying area
would not only affect 'the rural residential area selected,
but also greatly, increase required expansion. of all the
r
City support €acilities. The infill of existing land in
the downtown area is the most efficient useof existing
City services and is the single most effective method to
minimize urban sprawl while still providing the needed housing
in the most beneficial. location with regards to the renters,
the commercial community and existing City.services.
j
CONDOMINIUMS VERSUS RENTALS
The lot 'coverage to build approximately 72 to 80 condominiums
averaging: 1, 100 to 1, 200 sq. ft.. with two car garages, would
be about 160,000. to. 1803000 sq. -ft.
The lot coverage to build approximately 120 apartments aver:-
�
aging: 800 sq.ft. in two story. flats, would be about 120,000
f
sq. ft .
a
The above lot coverage includes both the. building footprints
and required paving for roads and parking. Our preliminary.
Architectural review brings out the fact that with good
design, _we willbe able to: build. 120 apartments versus 72
condominiums with Less lot coverage.
We feel the 120 unit apartment design would also allow us
to better protect the view corridor from Poway Road by clus-
tering the larger but, fewer buildings to a. less visually
noticable location on the site.
CONCLUSION_: We respectfully request -that this project alternative be
considered based on the potential. benefits to the City of
Poway and meeting the needed rental housing goals of the
community. As. part. of this consideration,: we are also open
to possible concepts regarding limiting: the proj;ect`s profits
and./or setting aside certain units for either the elderly
and/or reduced rental costs.
5 OF
6 l i EM
.: �` AUG 19 198. 26 `
AGRoaviENT OF UNDERSTANDIM
City Council for the City of Poway, hereinafter referred to as nCity" and.
Zanderson Inc : , hereinafter referred to as "Proponent"
enter into this Agreement of Understanding based upon the followi.ng facts:
Proponent owns or has an equitable interest in land described by tax
assessor's parcel number (s); 317-090-39, 4o
Proponent desires to . develop this property in accordance with the will of the
City and without the expense of a protracted development.
City is concerned that Proponent will create developaent plans unsatisfac-
tory to City and consume time and effort. of City employees needlessly on
unsatisfactory development plans unless City assists in directing Proponent.
Based upon theabove-mentioned facts, City will grant. Proponent a hearing
prior to filing: any application for development upon the following understand-
ing:
City will render no decisionwithregards to any development proposal_
or part thereof.
3. Gay will receive no evidence, specific in nature, in support of a
particular development plan.
City will make:no representations that will obligate the City to render
a decision in- favor of or againstany development proposal or part
thereof Proponentmay subsequently submit.:
). If. any development proposal is subsequently submitted, Proponent will
proceedat its sole and exclusive risk with the understanding that City
has made no representations upon which Proponent may rely.
Zanderson, Inc.
J. John Zanderson, President
Dated:
6 OF
Ca - X77 Proponent:
-
Sig,
AUG 19 1985 ITEM 2
Attachment 2
r
Y Rff
t
a7� p .•j ,y.b " `Z " i¢ elv aT`E `w • - '��AK•. Sh ' t
ij! / N 1 i+44,� ? t 4M. 6• _ ,r . Y ,x ..e u �va
n
} r s 1, C � � v} J. - v3• - }°.
p\ t � l � tom.. k t S�+M4CY> '�. Ye ¢O t .. v.r x.2•v*btnleh e v .�. rb't � . a ..
r .. R C�, ccs
iO
•�Rs" t% tic•C-'t ..
rI r7. } M' -JS_y. $•�r+A...
co
co
ERC
x
is
}�}. Z-�.. � t•'�s J. Sties �,f�/�iO`�� r = � .Y.•] �. •:
3 t.•c , t !as •.w,i�,�t•s}. 1/ � r. � i /eY�l •moi
is f r .! . J...� �»� •l are•ksx s. • ti • e s •s sf i'-
�••44*
Y f t•� •]• i!o R•• �yalsIf3i� r s •a.•? as t i'a. •= �.'='rr` : •:• xJ^ p�»a
r�_•t•X
Iwo
4 ewe
Iij ss � .. .• � �. • fit. F�
v r • • • • • • • ; f M.S.
ID
40
C ► '� ITEM : e—!:6 -
1 'l
Qj n
k
TITLE el
k
t
i.
}
SCALE AMA ATTACHMENT
k
7 oF: F
AI lf: 1 0 14RR IT E M � r
CITY OF CNAQ
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR'
1825 STRAND WAY
CORONADO, CA 92118
August 12, 1986
The Honorable Carl Kruse
Mayor, ;City of Poway
13325 Civic Center Drive
Poway, CA 92064
ECEI‘rEE)
AUG 131986
Cat ,,,n,teteca .a vf:'vE
Wee
"R" "H" DORMAN
MAYOR
(619) 522-7322
Dear Mayor Kruse:
At the Executive Committee Luncheon Meeting of the San
Diego Division of the League of Cities on. August 11, : 1986,
the Mayors present, or their representatives, agreed to
support Coronado in urging the California Transportation
Commission to continue the existing toll structure for the
San Diego -Coronado Bay Bridge. As agreed at that meeting,
I am enclosing a `` sample proposed resolution for your
consideration as soon as possible.
The California Transportation Commission will conduct a
public hearing on August 27th. Please forward the
original of your resolutionto me for delivery by me to
the Commission. If you think that U.S. Mail will not get
your resolution to me by August 25th, please advise and I
will pick it up at your office.
I very much appreciate your supportin this matter.
Sincerely,
"R" "Hg Dorman
Mayor, City of Coronado
Enclosure
Cottcaa
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
URGING THE CAL I FORN IA TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION TO SUPPORT THE CONTINUATION OF
THE PRESENT TOLL STRUCTURE FOR VEHICLES
CROSSING THE SAN DIEGO - CORONADO BAY BRIDGE
WHEREAS,. the San Diego - Coronado Bay Bridge carries
Interstate 5 commuter traffic, to Coronado, discharging it on to
unimproved city streets; and
WHEREAS,, the traffic volume greatly exceeded traffic
forecasts enabling the bridge bonds to be paid off 17 years
early, and.
WHEREAS, the extremely heavy East-West commuter traffic has
dissected the City of Coronado creating unforeseen health and
safety problems for that City; and:
WHEREAS, we support the foundamental right of a small city to
retain its residential character.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Counc i l of the
City of , does hereby request that the
California Transportation `Commiss ion recommend and support the
retention of the presently existing toll structure for the San
Diego - Coronado- Bay Bridge;. that fundsin excess of the cost of
maintaining the bridge be placed into an interest bearing trust
account to finance improvements acceptable to the City of
Coronado which may bebuilt to alleviate the bridge created
traffic problems.
PASSED'ANL) ADOPTED by the City Council of the City
of California, this - day of , 1986,
by the following vote, to wits
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Attest:
City Clerk
Mayor of the City